NETWORK ON DISABILITY (SF BAND)
SF BAND Report on Accessibility of Congressional Web Sites.
]|
(revised 08/2000) by Jean Nandi Chairperson, San Francisco Bay Area Network on Disability (SF BAND) (URL:http://disweb.org/sfband/) (This report is also available for distribution as an ascii text file) [INTRODUCTION] [METHODS & RATIONALE ] [RESULTS & DISCUSSION ] [CONCLUSIONS ] [APPENDIX A-- U.S. Senate websites listed alphabetically ] [APPENDIX B-- U.S. House of Representatives websites listed alphabetically ] [APPENDIX C-- REFERENCE MATERIAL ] [Go to Top of Page] As a representative of the San Francisco Bay Area Network on Disability and a member of the Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee I am concerned about the generally poor design of Congressional websites from the point of view of universal access. As a result of the use of assistive technology and connections to the internet, many people with significant disabilities now find themselves able to effectively communicate with others, and we also can become politically active by these means. It is therefore a source of much frustration that many of the websites developed by government agencies and by the staff of Senators and Representatives are unusable by those depending on special access hard- or soft-ware or those who cannot afford high speed computers and browsers. In order to bring these matters to the attention of Congress and those who develop their online presentations, the websites of members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives have been surveyed briefly to determine their accessibility from the point of view of persons with disabilities. The purpose of this study is not to criticize Congress for ineptitude but to try to educate and to increase the awareness of web developers on Capitol Hill regarding principles of universal access. Owing to its importance to our group and to persons with disabilities across the country, we in the San Francisco Bay Area Network on Disability seek to assist in this endeavor. APPENDIX C, at the end of this report, cites some literature and provides information justifying the use of universal, accessible website design. We strongly believe that these methods of presentation of information to the public through the internet benefit all by the resultant clarity and ease of use. [Table of Contents] This study was begun in July, 1999, and repeated in August, 2000. In the 1999 survey, an AOL 3.0 modified MSE browser with the graphics turned off was used to view the front pages only of each Senator or Congressmember's website. The repeat survey (2000) used Netscape 4.01, again with the graphics off. This approach simulates to some extent a fairly low end browser and requires website intelligibility without the use of graphics. Note that many people, whether or not they are visually impaired, prefer to surf the internet without loading graphics simply to add to the speed of accessing and loading pages. Our hope is to assist the website developers with simple means to make their pages universally accessible, not dependent on graphics (while not precluding the use of graphics to enhance the site for people who respond more easily to visual stimuli), and not dependent on having a computer system that supports the latest technology in high speed access/browsers. I should state at the outset that I am not blind, although somewhat visually impaired. I do not use a screenreader myself, and I invite those who do to scan some of these results and check them for accuracy. My intent was not to do a detailed examination of the accessibility or lack of same of any individual website, but to report overall on the efforts that have or have not been made by our Washington representatives to make their published materials available to all constituents. The method I used to quickly assess the universal accessibility of Congressional websites was to test the front pages of each through the "Bobby" test site (www.cast.org/bobby/). No effort was made to examine other pages, forms, or letterboxes for accessibility. The emphasis was on entry to the site and ease of navigation around the site. The method chosen is by no means fool-proof, but "Bobby" is a useful development tool in determining whether or not glaring problems remain. A few pages "passed" Bobby but were deemed inaccessible on other grounds. In more cases, pages failed the "Bobby test" but appear usable even though missing one or more access element. Often these reflect careless omissions on page update (for example, the addition of a counter without accompanying "alt" tag stating that this is a counter). It is suggested that web developers use the Bobby tool to check their pages before final installation or update just to ensure that such small errors are corrected. [Please see Appendix C for reference material.] Pages were rated according to 1) whether they "passed" the Bobby test and appear to be accessible using an ordinary browser with graphics turned off, 2) failed the Bobby test but can probably be made accessible with a few quick changes (or "passed" Bobby but clearly contain or fail to contain 1 or more elements which need upgrade for full accessibility), and 3) failed the Bobby test and need a large number of changes or even complete redesign to make them accessible to most persons with disabilities. Those in category 2 ranged from only missing an alt tag on a counter (probably dropped onto the page by someone other than the designer) to those using frames, requiring enough redesign to produce a "noframes" version. All in category 2 reveal some effort on the part of the designer to meet standards of accessibility. Although the 1999 analysis did not use all of the same criteria, the passing or failing of the Bobby test in 1999 was also reported herein. It was useful to compare those pages which appeared well designed a year ago and now "fail" the Bobby test, and vice versa. [Table of Contents] All Senators and Members of the House of Representatives are listed alphabetically in APPENDIX A and APPENDIX B, respectively. Members are listed according to whether their front pages 1) "passed Bobby," 2) For the most part did not "pass," but showed some effort at meeting accessibility standards, and 3) "failed" these accessibility tests.
Again, 57% of the websites maintained by the House of Representatives are not accessible as measured by the "Bobby" test, with another 23% not "passing" the test but judged close to meeting access requirements. Once again, the comparison with 1999 shows no significant difference as of August, 2000 (fewer sites were available in 1999). It should be noted that in some 22% of all cases only small changes would result in pages that would probably be nearly universally usable. It is further noted that these figures are approximations, inasmuch as Bobby can give false "positive" or "negative" ratings, and a page might be usable even if it does not "pass." I did not do a detailed analysis, nor did I use a screenreader to access the pages. Further, only the front pages were tested, with a few tests of individual frames or of "text-only" pages conducted where these added to the usability of this report. Clearly the web developer should use this report as a guide to improvement, not as a final determination of the usability of any individual website. Pages that make extensive use of frames, or of tables requiring horizontal and vertical comparisons of data, or those using javascripted indices, all make poor candidates for accessibility. The extensive use of graphics does not in itself preclude universal access, although all graphics must be coded with "alt" tags to allow them to be understood by blind or visually impaired users, or those choosing to turn graphics off for improved speed of loading. It is also necessary to include sufficient text such that comprehension of the messages does not depend on the graphics. In addition, it should be mentioned that the color combinations on some of the sites made it impossible to read the menus or indices without a screenreader, particularly for those with color blindness or moderate visual impairments. Pages requiring extensive navigation should permit keyboard alternatives, such as the use of the "tab" key to access menu selections. JavaScript and other programming tools may make pages or subunits inaccessible to many users who have browsers and equipment not conforming to current standards. If Congressmembers wish to reach all constituents, they need to provide alternatives to these, and to possibly inaccessible forms (including "guestbooks" and other mail programs) or other amenities available to those using standard, high quality equipment without special assistive technology hardware or software. Sensitivity toward the needs of this steadily growing group of concerned citizens will go a long way toward establishing good relationships between our legislators and their constituents. [Table of Contents] The results presented herein make clear that most of the websites maintained for members of the Senate and the House of Representatives lack the simple coding modifications which would result in their accessibility to all of the public, not just persons with high speed modems and browsers or those able-bodied individuals who do not require assistive technological aids to make use of internet resources. I should state clearly what this report does not attempt to do. It does not examine each site for overall accessibility. It does not determine whether the site enables or invites feedback from constituents. What it does do is determine whether the "gateway" or entry into a legislator's website is accessible, and whether navigation of the site is easy or even possible. I suggest that the developers of legislative websites consider carefully the purpose of a senator's or congressmember's site. Users of these sites are not particularly attracted to the site by a "glitzy" or artistic presentation. Users go to congressional websites for the purpose of obtaining information about what their legislator is doing and/or a means of communicating with the legislator. Therefore a clear, easily navigable page with links to detailed information, and an accessible, readily located email address and other contact information are of primary importance. The use of flashing, spinning, waving or otherwise animated graphics and of moving text is only disturbing and distracting. Hiding links among pictures, however attractive to occasional viewers, only detracts from the user's primary purpose. It is hoped that the Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee and the San Francisco Bay Area Network on Disability may take the lead in assisting members of Congress in upgrading their websites to make them more functional and universally accessible. As a start, in October, 1999 I reworked one of the government websites (Capitol Directory, at http://congress.org/capdir.html) and placed it in an online test directory for viewing. Keeping the original "look and feel" of the page, a few minor changes resulted in a site which is now fully accessible (this pair was reviewed also by a user who is blind and uses a screenreader). The original and upgraded Capitol Directory Test pages may be viewed at http://members.aol.com/jeannandi/test_congress/capdir.html and http://members.aol.com/jeannandi/test_congress/capdir_test.html, respectively, as examples of achieving accessibility without any apparent visible change to the page. (NOTE: I have not gone back to look at the original page as it exists today, but the example still serves as a useful demonstration. Evidently the advertising banner source has changed, resulting in a blank at the top of both pages.) It is recommended that, at a minimum, website developers test their products at the Bobby URL http://www.cast.org/bobby/ and that the representative's email address be displayed prominently on the front page of the website. Alternatives to forms, frames, scripts, sound files and material presented in tabular form should be provided. The San Francisco Bay Area Network on Disability suggests that Congress develop a web template, providing a cost-effective means of setting up personal websites and at the same time ensuring universal accessibility. Each individual site can be readily tailored to suit the desired "look and feel," while providing a uniform means for the public to find comparable information on multiple sites. Guidelines such as those provided by the City of San Jose, the University of Minnesota or the World Wide Web Consortium's checklist should be available and adhered to by all developers contracted to produce or maintain congressional websites. I take full responsibility for the results reported herein, and for any inaccuracies which may be found in the data presented. I have included some limited comments for many sites, especially those where just a few changes would render the pages fully accessible. --Jean Nandi, August 24, 2000 Address all correspondence to: Jean Nandi 1529 Josephine St. Berkeley, CA 94703-1168 phone: (510) 845-8236 email: jeannandi@able-net.net Home Website: http://members.aol.com/jeannandi/HOMEPAGE/JEANHOME.HTML SF BAND Website: http://disweb.org/sfband/ [Table of Contents] [APPENDIX A] [APPENDIX B] [APPENDIX C] [MORE of SF BAND'S work on Web Accessibility] [Back to SF BAND homepage ] |